Talk:Pedro Santana Lopes

Untitled

I edited the article because technically the President didn't dismiss the Government, he only dissolved the Parliament and called early elections. He could only dismiss the government if there was evidence that there was danger to the "Regular working of the Institutions". That's why the Government conserves it's full legislative powers (with the exception of those that need the Parliament's aproval). This, however doesn't mean the President can't in the near future dismiss the Government itself, if he sees fit.

Nap

On the story of the nap: Ana Costa Almeida, one of Santana Lopes's spokespersons wrote to weekly Expresso "acompanhei o Senhor Primeiro-Ministro na sua deslocação à Assembleia da República, de onde saiu às 18h30 e não às 17h00 como é dito. Depois disso, o Dr. Pedro Santana Lopes não foi fazer qualquer sesta, como é afirmado".

I find it outrageous that people are using this wikipedia article to make political campaign by attacking Dr. Pedro Santana Lopes.

->Note: Pedro Santana Lopes is not a Doctor so the prefix Dr. is not justifiable.

The whole gaffes section should be deleted. Pedro Santana Lopes is known for his work not for those insignificant and preposterous claims. Pharotek 22:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Right. Because telling the truth is an "attack". The article is already way too pro-Santana and anti-Guterres as it is, implying Santana couldn't have done any better with what he had, which is a lie. Dehumanizer 08:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • ...or it WAS. I've removed the POV. Did it make sense for the biggest paragraph in the article to be a defense of the guy AND an attack on his predecessor? As for the gaffes, he *is* known for them - just like Dan Quayle or George W. Bush. Saying so isn't an attack. Dehumanizer 08:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I’ve included some defence because the whole article was just an attack on Santana. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. I've never seen an encyclopaedia that includes political propaganda. This article in its current state only helps to promote a negative image of wikipedia. I will do a full rewrite asap. And Santana is not known for those gaffes. Some of them are true, others are not, but he is not known for them and they should not be in a biographic article. Pharotek 12:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dehumanizer, well I guess you are portuguese, you live in Portugal and you are up to date with the national news; I don't think so. This article is supposed to be a biography. I've only written accurate and verifiable facts. The tone of the article is an attack on Dr. Pedro Santana Lopes. Pharotek 19:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

->Note: Pedro Santana Lopes is not a Doctor so the prefix Dr. is not justifiable.

Don't change what you don't know

I don't get it why verifiable facts continue to be deleted. The country was a mess when PSD rose to power. The Socialist Party DID lie about matters of public finance, the Eurostat uncovered those lies. Why do these facts continue to be deleted.

This article is a joke. I've never seen a biographic article contain gaffes and stating that the person is known for those gaffes. Dr. Pedro Santana Lopes is NOT known for those gaffes, I'm a portuguese, I know what I am saying. Pharotek 19:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

->Note: Pedro Santana Lopes is not a Doctor so the prefix Dr. is not justifiable.

http://www.viewswire.com/index.asp?layout=display_print&doc_id=1667936966 quote: Portugal became the first country to breach the EU's "excessive deficit" rule with a budget deficit of 4.4% of GDP in 2001, well above the 3% of GDP ceiling set by the EU's Stability and Growth Pact.

The deficit was 4,4%. The Guterres Administration stated that the deficit was below 3%. This is a lie. So this isn't just my POV, it is, like I had said, a verifiable fact. If no one objects I will include these facts back in the article Pharotek 19:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And Guterres did abandon the country by quiting his job as Prime Minister http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=S%26%2BH%28%2BPQ%3B%2A%0A

Pharotek 19:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that you've not fully understood the Wikipedia approach. In a conversation between us, perhaps over coffee, I might accept without question that whatever you tell me about Portuguese politics is true because you're Portuguese (actually, even then I might be less than credulous, though I'd probably not express my scepticism — after all, plenty of English people hold very strange opinions about what is obviously true in British politics). What happens, though, if two users appear on this page, offering opposing views, each saying: 'I'm Portuguese, so I know what I'm saying'?

The expectation is that editors will provide sources — it's even on the editing page (“Please cite your sources so others can check your work.”). This is especially important when the issue is one that is likely to arouse controversy, strong feelings, and partisanship — all of which are true with regard to politics.

Now that you have provided sources, the excised material can go back into the article (though it's still important to make it read like an encyclopædia article rather than a party-political statement; that is, the language should be calm, and neutral). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you refer to him as Santana; is that usual in Portugal? What happens to the Lopes? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is common in Portugal to use the less usual surname, when you have a very common one like Lopes. Examples are Durão Barroso and Cavaco Silva. --Explendido Rocha 23:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The changes made by Explendido Rocha didn't really make the article NPoV. Indeeed, by making it read as though the quotation from an independent source (the Economist) was something claimed by the SDP, the article was made inaccurate. Given the apparent sensitivity of this passage, could proposed changes by placed on this page first, so that they can be discussed (and the English improved) before placing in the article? That would head off a possible edit war. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There will be an edit war anyway. A Portuguese newspaper mentioned this article last Friday, and one thing most Portuguese will tell you is that Santana Lopes intensily dislikes criticism; an article who shows him as less than perfect (and btw, each of these gaffes is true- there is no need to invent gaffes by Santana Lopes), and you can be pretty sure that someone would come here to try to clean his image. And don't think I'm being paranoid - I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Anyway, these passages should refer rather to his predecessor, Durão Barroso- who was Guterres' sucessor- and not to Santana.

And yes, I consider Santana Lopes to be the worst Prime Minister Portugal had since Salazar, and I fervently hope that he will be broomed into oblivion next Sunday. A man who makes me miss both Guterres and Barroso deserves no less. --Explendido Rocha 23:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if anyone tries to do that, there are plenty of editors here to stop them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you check that, in correcting the English of your addition, I've not misunderstood your meaning? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Marcello Rebelo de Sousa is a former leader of PSD, and commented on the political situation every Sunday on private TV station TVI. Santana Lopes never complained while Marcello was demolishing Guterres or praising Barroso, but when Santana became PM, Marcello was very critical since he didn't thought Santana was up for the job (IMHO, he wasn't). The government started pressing TVI to remove Marcello, and the president of TVI, who had an interest in the legislation regarding digital TV in Portugal, asked Marcello to tone down his criticism. Marcello then resigned. As I said, Santana intensily dislikes criticism, and everything that shows him as less than perfect. --Explendido Rocha 23:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph is OK now. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've presented sources for the following paragraph (see above): Santana's leadership was particularly difficult because Portugal’s political and economic situation was very precarious. When Santana’s party rose to power, they found the country to be in an appalling condition. The previous government (led by António Guterres of the Socialist Party) had left the country’s economy in what was described as a ‘swamp’. The Guterres administration was so damaging that they even had to lie about matters of public finance, specifically about the national deficit; these lies were later uncovered by the Eurostat.

Yet this paragraph keeps getting removed from the article. I just ask for a little bit of elevation and respect. I believe the gaffes should be part of the article, because they are beyond the scope of a biography; however I don’t remove them repeatedly. Please stop removing the aforementioned paragraph. Thank you very much.

Explendido Rocha: If you plan on attacking Santana at least give accurate info. Why did you forget to mention that Santana and Marcelo are practically archenemies?

Santana Lopes never complained while Marcello was demolishing Guterres or praising Barroso,

Santana never complained about Marcelo (by the way, it's only spelled with one L) because Santana wasn't a member of the government. Pharotek 03:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main problem with the paragraph was its language. Wikipedia articles need to be neutral, not only in content, but in tone. Your wording read like a political attack, and I kept the substance while removing the tone. It was removed by Explendido Rocha on the basis that it in fact referred to Santana Lopes' predecessor. Looking at it again, I think that it's clear that that's the case, but it's also obvious that such deep economic difficulties weren't cleared up by the time Santana Lopes took office, and it's therefore relevant to the article. I've reinstated it, with an extra tweak to the tenses to make matters even clearer.

Everyone should remember that this is an article on Santana Lopes, not on the modern political history of Portugal; a detailed account of this period belongs in a diferent article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry, in my edit summary I blamed Dehumanizer for the removal of the passage; it was of course Explendido Rocha.) The passage isn't PoV; I removed the PoV tone, added an independent reference, and emphasised that he wasn't the direct, only the indirect recipient of a poor economic situation. Your hatred of this man shouldn't blind you to everything but criticism of him. Are you claiming that the Portuguese economy was in a good state when Santana Lopes took office? If so, you need to give some independent reference. Please don't just remove the passage like this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Santana did complain about Marcelo (and yes, it is one L, unlike his godfather), but that's not the point. Durão did claim, when arrive to office, that the economical situation was dire. Simply, the current redaction makes one think that Guterres is the only one to blame by the situation that Santana claims to have encountered, ignoring that Barroso also only managed to "control" the deficit through the sale of state property (and some claim these figures were fugged anyway, just like Guterres is accused). So, this discussion clearly belongs to Barroso or Guterres articles, not to Santana Lopes - and is subjective to a degreee that the current redaction doesn't show. So, yes, it's POV. --Explendido Rocha 12:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, I've replaced the paragraph and added a further sentence to try to cover your concerns. Secondly, however, you still haven't provided sources or references — you've just repeated your claims (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Thirdly, note the three revert rule; you shouldn't remove this passage again within the next twenty-four hours. If you can provide sources, we can discuss how to edit the passage accordingly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've made it even worse, I'm afraid. This only had a POV on Guterres, you added a POV on Barroso. The PSD claims the situation improved a lot under Barroso, the Socialists claim otherwise. The PSD claims the Socialists left the country in an economical disaster, the socialists disagree. You can say "Santana Lopes claims", but you can't say "Santana Lopes is a poor guy which has everybody against him, and his government was like a baby in an incubator", and still be non-POV. --Explendido Rocha 13:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, provide me with neutral sources other than the one that I've been using, and we can see where to go from there. If you insist that the Economist piece is biased, fine — there must be material that will show that.

You realise, I'm sure, that I have absolutely no point of view of my own on this; that's largely why I'm trying to act as an honest broker. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://dn.sapo.pt/2004/12/20/suplemento_negocios/despesa_coloca_defice_2004_50_pib.html

I insist on this: Santana Lopes _claims_ that that his government had a difficult life because of the economical situation of the country. _I_ (and my opinion is as valid as his) claim that his government had a difficult life because he is an incompetent who surrounded himself by incompetent loyalists, a factor which is independent from the country's economical situation. So, when you are saying that his life was made difficult by the economy, you are presenting a POV. When you say that he _claims_ that, you are presenting _his_ POV, which is OK. --Explendido Rocha 16:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I got the claim about the difficult state of the economy from the Economist link, not from Santana Lopes — so I'm not believing one of you over the other. I don't speak Portuguese, I'm afraid; I tried the last-resort measure of using Google translation — 'da autoria da ex-ministra das Finanças Manuela Ferreira Leite' became 'of the authorship of former-gives of the Manuela Finances Blacksmith Milk', so you can imagine how useful it was... I'll look again at the article and see if I can make it any more NPoV without pushing too far the other way. I can at least add the reference you've just provided. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The whole "Santana Lopes' leadership was made difficult by..." paragraph is a mess. It's a clear apologetic approach of mr.Santana's performance as PM, non encyclopaedic and frankly it seems like the result of whiny supporters comming for the rescue of their beloved leader's page. What the hell are these non-encyclopaedic considerations about mr. Santana's politics and cunjuncture doing about in this page? Sure enough, they may be debatably true, but there's a lot more to the portuguese economic situation than just the apologetic "the previous government had left the country’s economy in a poor state"---WTF is THAT?!! Consider deleting the whole thing, I really don't think it's salvageable.

(Even though you have no user name (why not get one?), could you sign comments with ~~~~? It would also help if you kept your tone more civil and less confrontational, unless and until you're given reason to become annoyed.)

Articles mustn't express points of view, but they can contain references to matters upon which points of view are based if those references are backed up (as they are in the text). I doubt if the article's perfect, but I think that you need to do more than bull in and declare part of it unsalvageable. I assume from your English that you may be Portuguese; to what extent is your reaction founded on your own political views? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr Etitis, the "I assume from your English that you may be Portuguese" bit was a nice jab, not only do you try to diminish my use of the language but implicitly cloud my political objectivity. Nice one and how extremely elevated of you. By the way, I assume from your english that you're Irish. Your tone of superiority about my "bulling in", by simply declaring that paragraph unsalvageable IN A DISCUSSION PAGE, is also very telling of what an open mind you are showing to have. I hope you don't find my statement below "bulling in". On the article itself: a paragraph that stated NOTHING MORE than that mr. Santana's difficulties were caused by what the socialist party had done in the past is extremely PoV. Guess what? Every PM has to deal with what others before him did! The paragraph was basically clearing mr Santana and the government before him(formed by a party of which he was the vice-president)of any responsability of the difficult portuguese economical situation. Is that not PoV? Saying that his "leadership was made difficult" only by mr. Guterres' mistakes(and sure enough there were mistakes and fuzzy maths about the defficit, but the following government did THE EXACT SAME THING and mr. Lopes' managed to make the deficit RISE on his short term, therefore at least being as guilty of the situation as his predecessors) and the state of the economy is oversimplifying it enough to put any blame of his own shortcomings on the shoulders of others. It was a clear "blame someone else" paragraph. Maybe you don't know this, but mr. Santana while campaigning did this exact same "blame it on others" thing over and over. Maybe you don't know that before him, mr. Barroso did the exact same thing. Arguments from a political campaign(and they are not facts, as the paragraph emplyied) have no place in an encyclopedia. I apologise in advance for my poor english and any typos, and sincerely hope you don't find this reasonig agressive or "confrontational" - Serodio

Mr Etitis: I've edited the page again, please do not revert it to the old version as it was clearly non NPoV. I agree that the page might be considered poorer without the previous referenced sources but (and this is a very important but) those references were made to shift the article to an obvious apologetic PoV. The whole paragraph could have been taken (and I suspect it actually was, i'm investigating) from a PSD campaign leaflet. I hope that you agree with me that even a poorer article in references is better than political propaganda. Linking to outside sources is not everything. - Serodio

Well, in fact you are being aggressive and confrontational and needlessly sarcastic, but I'll try to overlook that. You seem to have misread or misunderstood the paragraph about which you were complaining; I went to great lengths to emphasise that Sanatana Lopes also suffered from the actions of his immediate predecessor. I have no interest in apologising for Santana Lopes; I have no axe to grind in Portuguese politics, and although I'm not entirely ignorant of recent events, my only interest is in protecting the article against successive edits by strongly partial people (most of whom seem to have no interest in Wikipedia beyond changing the political colour of this one article).

I've copy-edited the English (see comment below), but it seems to me that some of the excised material should be replaced (especially the references to external (and in one case, at least) neutral sources. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

_Dear Mr Etitis: you say I am being "needlessly sarcastic". I believe sarcasm is always needed.

Well, you're wrong, but let it pass. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

The main problem I have with the article in its current form is the paragraph about the state of the economy when mr Santana was appointed: .The phrase "Santana Lopes' leadership was made difficult by a number of inherited economic and political problems" is crap because of one word: "inherited", stating that he had a difficult time only because of what others before him did. This is, of course, biased, one might say with the same level of accuracy that his leadership was made difficult by his innability to overcome the problems he "inherited".

I'm afraid that you haven't understood the English. If an idiot tries and fails to tie his own shoelaces, it's still correct to say that his task was made difficult by the fact, say, that there was a high wind blowing, or that the shoelaces were old and frayed. To say that a task is difficult is to say nothing about the calibre of the person attempting it; it's just to state a fact. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

.After that we have "The previous government (led by António Guterres of the Socialist Party) left with the country's economy in a poor state". This is not only highly debatable on an economic point of view (one may say that high government spending is a financial problem but simply stating that the economy was in trouble because of it is a big and innacurate leap) but also false and biased. Actually, one might go as far as PM Cavaco Silva to reason why government spending rose so high (let's not forget that it was Cavaco that started the trend of over-the-top spending in public workers' salaries in 1991) _ And of course going back and blaming the predecessors of mr Santana for his troubles is plain silly, because all politicians must deal with the situation they are left with. (on a personal side note I might add that no other PM in Portugal was as prolific as mr Santana in creating his own problems out of the blue, but that's just, like, my opinion)

Provide evidence against the external, neutral evidence supplied in the article, and we can think about changing the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

."(...)though the Guterres government had claimed that the deficit was under 3%" - ok, this one needs a link to an outside source and fast, or I'll delete it pure and simple (and please don't revert it back unless you want to look like a Santanette, you have no idea of what this "they claimed it was under 3%" catch-phrase means in portuguese politics). If a link is provided I will gladly discuss the validity of the inclusion of this in an encyclopaedic point of view.

you have no idea of what this "they claimed it was under 3%" catch-phrase means in portuguese politics? Well, if it means something other than what it says, enlighten me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

.And then we have the ultimate phrase in web based encyclopedia propaganda: "The situation inherited by Santana Lopes was little better, as the previous government led by Barroso had been able to comply with European Union directives regarding the deficit". Not only is this phrase blatantly biased in tone (sure, it has a convenient "little" in there, to look objective) but again false. Mr Barroso's way of complying with the EU directives was to sell off State property and you'll agree with me that this does absolutely nothing to the state of the economy as the structural deficit still occurs. The actual deficit when taken in consideration without the property sales was the exact same excessive deficit that Guterres' government is blamed for in this phrase. And even more incredibly, mr Santana's government actually saw this real deficit rise in 2004, a fact which this paragraph mysteriously ommits. Mind boggling...

If you can make your points in the article without resorting to emotional language and hyperbole, fine (though it would be better to place it on this page first, so that the English can be tidies before it goes into the text). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with Santana having a whole section dedicated to his infamous gaffes either, but at least their inclusion does not show a non NPoV approach, as these innacurate and biased phrases do. I leave this to your consideration, because a simple editing of the article by me would probably be reverted by you as you seem to have assumed the role of a self-appointed keeper of the page. I apologise for any spelling mistakes. Sincerely, Serodio.

• Mr Etitis:I kindly ask you to refrain from editing your comments into the body of what I write, I only sign my name once at the end and your doing so gives the impression you're disscussing with an anonymous user. You once encouraged me to sign my comments, i started doing so, but it seems to little effect if you continue to edit yourself into my text. Thank you in advance.

___"I'm afraid that you haven't understood the English. If an idiot tries and fails to tie his own shoelaces, it's still correct to say that his task was made difficult by the fact, say, that there was a high wind blowing, or that the shoelaces were old and frayed. To say that a task is difficult is to say nothing about the calibre of the person attempting it; it's just to state a fact" - Though I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, i disagree with the premises you made. If you say an idiot failed to tie his own shoelaces and then only refer to the difficulties caused by the wind while carefully omiting that the man was an idiot it makes it seem as it was the wind's fault he couldn't tie them. It's a matter of distorting reality stating just facts, as a lawyer I can tell you this is a very easy thing to do. I would like to confront you with my "proposed" alternative to that phrase: "his leadership was made difficult by his innability to overcome the problems he "inherited". Wouldn't it also be accurate? I think it would, though it wouldn't be neutral, and that's the beef I have with this one phrase. And to state that mr Santana inherited "the political problems" that the article then describes is false, there's no way around it, it's false! Mr Santana played an active role in the succession process to mr Barroso (which is referred in the article as one of the problems he had), he could have refused to get to office without an election but he didn't. I'd very much like to hear your explanation on how this is inheriting the problem.

__"Provide evidence against the external, neutral evidence supplied in the article, and we can think about changing the article" - I have no problem with stating that the economy was in a poor state, my problem is with the reference to mr Guterres'government. As i said, blaming a predecessor of mr Santana for his woes seems silly to me, if we go back back far enough I think we could pretty much blame it all on D.Afonso Henriques. But like I've said before, that's just, like, my opinion.

__"Well, if it means something other than what it says, enlighten me" - You wrote this in reference to what I said about excluding "though the Guterres government had claimed that the deficit was under 3%" from the article. Nice way of avoiding my point that no external reference confirms this supposed "claim" by the socialist government. Well, not really a very nice way actually. But no problem here either, I've deleted this sorry excuse of propaganda. And even if someone actually finds a source for this supposed claim (I don't think anyone will though, as I think this is no more than an apocryphal portuguese political meme) I still think it's a strech to include it in the article. But that's another story, for now it's gone and until the external link comes by it should stay that way. By the way, including this "they lied to us about the deficit" crap means the same as going to John Kerry's article an say he was a flip-flopper. There, feel enlightened. Oh, and please do not revert the article to a previous version because of my deletion, it would be very rude to do so without providing an actual outside source.

__"If you can make your points in the article without resorting to emotional language and hyperbole, fine" - Well, mr Etitis, I DID! I did it in a previous version of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Santana_Lopes&oldid=10499462), which you altered to get a tidier english (although by doing so you inadvertedly changed a small part into an innacurate report of what happened, in my opinion, again I digress). Unfortunately one mr Pharotek, someone who is clearly affiliated with mr Santana, changed it back. Why do you seem to only demand work from those accused of being against Santana (and let me tell you I have absolutely nothing against mr Santana, I just don't like seeing wikipedia used for political reasons) but gladly and blindly side by an openly biased party? You claim you have no axe to grind in portuguese politics, and I believe you, but your actions make it look otherwise. Sincerely Serodio

• Serodio, I despise Santana Lopes as much as any Portuguese, and you can see from my previous edits and comments on this very page that I've fought to keep important criticisms of Santana in the article, against some people who believed that the article was POV simply because it didn't say Santana was perfect. But I think you're exaggerating. You're acting like you seem to think that EVERY sentence in the article must be a criticism against Santana. It *is* true that he didn't inherit (and the word doesn't imply that "it was all his predecessors' fault") a good situation - he came, after all, after Durão Barroso. He's guilty of making things even worse, sure, but it's not like the country was an utopia when he became Prime Minister. And the second term of Guterres was far from perfect, either. If voting for PS makes you unable to see anything Guterres and his government did wrong, then you are doing exactly the same thing that Santana Lopes supporters did - "he's the leader of our party, therefore he can do no wrong and we must support him, no matter what". Dehumanizer 09:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you mean by "I despise Santana Lopes as much as any Portuguese", I don't despise him at all. Though I think he was a rather incompetent PM, I have no personal feelings, good or bad, towards him. You did play an important role in keeping this page less PoV but that gives no special legitimacy in determining what is or is not PoV, arguments should stand on their own independently of who makes them. I never claimed the article should state any nonsense about the country being well beore he came in, i only claimed that the article had a very biased tone and some factual errors. More importantly, i said that what is not on the article, the clever ommissions by some editors, is even more decisive in shifting it to a PoV stand. You assume I voted PS in the last election and this makes me uncapable of seeing his mistakes, but you are far from right. I actually considered voting PSD (i had my reasons), only to refrain from doing so at the last minute. But I will not stand and watch if wikipedia is used for political reasons by people who seem to be affiliated with JSD. Sincerily, Serodio.

• I had hoped to deal with this myself — to stand between two sets of politically committed people who want to change the article to suit their own points of view. I also hoped that, after the election, things would calm down. I was wrong on both counts. I'm now placing this article on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page, and see if other editors can help to keep it neutral. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I thank you for your dedication to this page and hope that other editors help bring a much needed impartial tone. I hope that placing this page on Requests for Comment would also compell you to abstain from continuously reverting the page to the Pharotek-approved version of it. I would also thank you if you'd be so kind as to adress the issues I've raised in my last commentary (above this text) on this talk page. - Serodio

About the Gaffes section

Pharotek, I'd be the first to agree that an encyclopedia article shouldn't just list gaffes from a particular person (or, else, the George W. Bush and Dan Quayle ones would be longer than "War and Peace"). The point is that Santana *is* known for the gaffes - they are mentioned in political cartoons, for instance. Saying he is know for them is not POV, it's stating a fact. Besides, it's not an exhaustive list, just a few examples. You don't want me to add the "our government is a baby in an incubator" one, do you? :)

I also believe that Santana Lopes is a liar, a coward, incompetent, an "aunt" (portuguese expression, you know what I mean - to the non-Portuguese, think "socialite", usually applied to an air-headed middle-aged woman who never worked in her life but is rich and goes to all the parties)), and the worse PM I can remember (I'm 30) - yet I don't add *that* to the article, because that, indeed, would be POV.

Or do you believe that the Adolf Hitler article should have all references to the Holocaust removed because that's an attack on Hitler? And yes, this is Godwin's law :) Dehumanizer 11:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A good example is also former FC Porto player João Pinto, who everybody would say (even FC Porto supporters) is also known by his gaffes. The difference is half the gaffes of João Pinto aren't actually true (predictions only after the game), while all those here are documented. --Explendido Rocha 12:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dehumanizer: nice try. But seriously let's not mix Hitler and a respected man in the same discussion. As for being a coward: Santana NEVER abandoned the country, that is Guterres’s style. Guterres f$#ed up the economy and then abandoned the country so as to let others clean up the mess. The problem is that the mess he created was so great that they are still cleaning as of today. Santana being a liar, I know a lot of politicians, in my opinion they are ALL liars. A "aunt", tia or socialite, sure he his, is that so bad? You know as well as me and every Portuguese that José Sócrates is gay and as a long time affair with that actor. I'm not saying it's good or bad to be gay. Santana is a socialite who likes women, Sócrates likes men. If you would ask me who I would like to see as prime minister: neither! Although I FIRMLY believe Santana would be much better than Sócrates, but we both know Sócrates is well ahead in the poll and will surely win tomorrow. PS: i like the current version of the article, I honestly believe it's accurate and non factious.

Pharotek 17:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Ooo. Where to begin? "Let's not mix Hitler and a respected man"? Hitler was surely much more respected in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s than Santana is - or ever was - in Portugal. (I'm not comparing both, just stating that just like the Hitler article must talk about the Holocaust, so must the Santana Lopes article be neutral and state facts, even if they don't show the subject as "perfect and unblemished".) Guterres abandoned the country? What about Durão Barroso? What about Santana himself - read the article, look for "the only occasion he finished a term in office"? (I'm guessing you'll want to edit that out, too.) Is José Sócrates gay? I don't know. Maybe he is, maybe not - who cares? Paulo Portas has been described as such for much longer - maybe he is, maybe he isn't, again. Who cares? I don't despise him (or like him) for that, I *do* despise Portas for being a fascist and promoting religious fundamentalism, isolationism and xenophobia. But I digress. Why do I care about Santana being an "aunt"? Because that, unlike sexual preferences, actually makes a difference in one's performance as a Prime Minister. A typical "aunt" is brainless, has never worked in her life, and only cares about appearances. Just like Santana Lopes. Dehumanizer 18:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pharotek, this article is about Santana so please do not insert political comments or opinions, or stuff about adversaries here. The gaffes are well known of everybody in Portugal (and unfortunately they are pristine truth, as you know) and they are a part of the article. Please understand that wikipedia works by consensus and medidate in the fact that there are several users against your views here. muriel@pt 19:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is a left wing pressure group editing this article doesn't make them right. I respect wikipedia, and that is why I always try to explain my changes here and present sources. Unlike myself the left wing pressure group doesn't abide by the same stantards. Guterres abandoned the country. He resigned from office because he was unable to revert all his wrong doing. Durão was invited to a very prestigious position. PSD did not abandon the country. Maybe you are not aware but the Portuguese Constitution clearly states that in a legislative election the people vote for a party, not for a person. Durão left but PSD was still in power. Santana succeeded him and was later dismissed by the President of the Republic (he was a member of the Socialist Party but one cannot be affiliated with any party in order to apply for the job of President). The situations are very distinct. It takes real ingenuity to believe that a brainless person that has never worked in his life and only cares about appearances can reach a position of Prime Minister in an EU country... As for being gay, the problem is not Sócrates being gay, the problem is that he doesn't come clean. Why is afraid to state that he his gay? Is he ashamed of himself? If it so, then he is trying to pose as someone he is not just to get elected. That disgusts me! Pharotek 21:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could we calm down a bit? It's clear that there are opposed political opinions here, and they're causing the temperature to rise much higher than is appropriate. A plague on both your houses; I'm interested only in making sure that the article is of good quality, and neutral. I realise that some of you think that anything that goes against your position is by definition bigoted and extreme; it isn't. I've been trying to keep this article and its Talk page away from RfC — please help me on this by staying calm and as dispassionate as you can. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are the gaffes still here? There are no citations! Margaridas (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Objective version

I am calm about this. I want to share another of my POV's with you guys: this article is quite biased. I believe the Portuguese version of the same wikipedia article is much less biased. I will now present a translation made by me. I've never edited the Portuguese version. I'm doing this in hope of elevating the quality of this article. This is an accurate translation. I will only make SLIGHT adjustments that WILL NOT change the tone of article. I'm modifying things such as: Literal Translation: Is the Prime Minister of Portugal.

My Translation: Has been Prime Minister of Portugal since July 17, 2004.

The translated version is the most current:

14:16, 11 Fev 2005 195.23.220.52 

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Santana_Lopes

Here it goes:

Pedro Miguel Santana Lopes (born June 29, 1956 in Lisbon) is a Portuguese politician, and has been Prime Minister of Portugal since July 17, 2004.

Santana Lopes graduated in Law from the University of Lisbon. He joined the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD) in 1976, and he is the current President of the party.

He was part of the Cavaco Silva administration as State Secretary of Culture. He was also president of Sporting Clube de Portugal, and Mayor of Figueira da Foz - currently one of the rare times he ever completed a term in office. In 2001 he became Mayor of Lisbon.

When Durão Barroso resigned from office, in order to accept the invitation to become President of the European Commission, on July 6 of 2004, Santana, who was then the party's Vice-President of the Partido Social Democrata (PSD), rose to President.

Jorge Sampaio, President of the Republic, ended the political crisis created by Durão Barroso's departure by inviting Santana Lopes to form a new Government. He was appointed Prime Minister on the 12 of July and was sworn in on July 17. However, on November the 30th the President of the Republic announced that he was going to dismiss the government and forcing an early election.

After that, Santana's government resigned, a decision with no practical effects, since the government would continue as a caretaker government until the new government could take its place after the elections on the 20th of February 2005.

In a poll published December 17 2004 on the newspaper Expresso, 49% felt Santana's performance was negative, and only 35% considered it positive; 43% considered him as the main responsible for the political crisis, against 29% that felt that his predecessor was responsible, 17% blamed the President of the Republic Jorge Sampaio.

Santana Lopes has five children by three different ex-wives.

END

I feel this version is much more objective. Please state your opinions. If no one can prove that the current version is better I will exchange it for this one (with or without any changes deemed necessary by consensus).

Pharotek 23:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

parts of this could certainly be added to the article — but (leaving aside some polishing of English & style; I've added a couple of words that you omitted by accident, by the way), it mainly succeeds in appearing to be more NPoV simply by omitting detail. Surely we should be aiming at making the article neutral and detailed? What do others think? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I've only translated the Portuguese version. In the Portuguese version it does not say that he his divorced. It's just a subtle nuance, but again it contributes to the defamatory tone that people use when writing about Prime Minister Pedro Santana Lopes. It does say that the children are from his 3 ex wives and nothing more. I kindly ask you not to edit my comments in the discussion. Since we all sign our comments any change that you make will be perceived by others as having been written by myself. Thanks ;). Pharotek 01:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Uh? Since when saying that he is divorced is an attack? Are you out of your mind? Or do you simply want to censor anything that paints your "hero" as less than perfect? Dehumanizer 10:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, my apologies; the “, and” made it look as though something had been omitted, and as the article had “is divorced, and” there, it seemed a natural assumption. Secondly, is he divorced (or did his three ex-wives all die)? If so, then it can't be PoV to say so. I certainly don't see how it could be construed as an attack. Thirdly, does anyone have any (non-confrontational, Wikipedia-style) comments on the translated passage? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I've just reverted yet another person's removal of the paragraph about the economic situation. The paragraph makes it clear that there was a gap between Guterres' and Santana Lopes' times of office, and explains that the intervening period only made things worse. To remove it on the grounds merely that there was such a gap is therefore unacceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And another revert of another deletion of (this time only most of) the text. It's not perfect; as it stands it mentions only the (documented and referenced) difficulties faced by Santana Lopes. Instead of deleting what's already there, why not make the article better – more detailed and more balanced – by adding (equally documented and referenced) material concerning his time in office? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the text by adding a bit more information of the problems Santana faced as a PM, I think it's much more balanced now. Stating that the problems his leadership faced were caused only by the previous socialist government is oversimplifying the situation enough to make it propaganda, pure amnd simple. I've taken down some references but I think it's worth it to ensure NPoV. The whole "Guterres had claimed this and it was actually like that" argument is void of encyclopaedic interest, extremely debatable and when taken in context with what the ensuing governments did (by changing the criteria to evaluate the deficit) biased. I'll say that my edit is definetly far from perfect but was necessary to keep the article's tone and language neutral and balanced. - Serodio

I've tidied the English and style. I've no doubt that there will be complaints, but let's wait and see. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And the apologising returns, yet once again. - Serodio

If you or anyone can provide a brief, independently verifiable, neutral-toned account of Santana Lopes' term in office, then fine — I keep removing or toning down simple attacks. Come on, I'm genuinely eager to know: what did he do wrong? (I can't repeat often enough: I have no prejudice either way — except in so far as I expect him to be dishonest and self-serving, because he's a politican.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poor little Santana. Being attacked just for having accepted a job he wasn't up to. Regarding the teacher allocation problem, while nobody accused Santana of being responsible, this attempt to blame the previous government (and whose party was it?) seems to be a way of forgetting the irresponsability and incompetence displayed by Santana and his Minister for Education during the process. Yes, the IT provided had being chosen in Durão Barroso's government. And yes, the Minister of Education Santana chose was (IMHO, and I'm still to know someone who thinks otherwise) irresponsable and incompetent during the whole process, and wasn't even sacked. --

Explendido Rocha 10:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minister for National Defence and Sea Affairs

I found the title on a Portuguese government Web-site, so although it sounds slightly odd in English, it's semi-official. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Juridical assistant?

This is probably a direct translation; what exactly does such a person do? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess legal advisor would be a better translation. --Explendido Rocha 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And please would mind to leave the "criticised by the press" out? The press didn't criticised him, some columnists did. And other columnists defended him. So what? This is one more attempt to show Santana as a poor victim. --Explendido Rocha 10:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're being oversensitive again (it seems to be the hallmark of this page). Why should saying that someone was criticised by the press imply that they're a 'poor victim'? That wasn't the intention, nor, I think, would any native speaker read it like that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You yourself admited that you don't speak Portuguese. How the hell do you know what the Portuguese press said about him? Yes, many _columnists_ _in_ the press criticised him- and some defended him ferociously. Ever heard about Luís Delgado? I thought so. --Explendido Rocha 15:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you calmed down actually read what I'd written, and thought about it, instead of explodong with fury, you'd have seen that your response misses my point altogether. Anyway, I've given up trying to defend the neutrality of this page on my own; it's getting to the point where I'm not even sure any more what's neutral and what's not, with semi-hysterical, politically biassed people pulling in different directions. The article is now listed on RfC, and with any luck it will start getting attention from more outside editors. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not only you know what the Portuguese press said about him, without reading Portuguese, you also know that I'm exploding with fury, without ever meeting me. Do you also know what number will come out in next week's Spanish lottery?

The Portuguese press is largely apolitical (apart from the sport newspapers, but I digress). The market is too small for them too loose a part of it by leaning too much to one side. They largely don't criticise politicians, they report. They leave the comment to the columnists, and all mainstream newspapers have some independent columnist and others affiliated with all main political parties. Even sport newspaper A Bola- where, btw, Santana Lopes had a column, which often praised himself- while appealing mainly to Benfica supporters, has a pro-FC Porto columnist. Many (probably most) of them were anti-Santana, but then, he got less than 29% of the votes. And many others were pro-Santana. Luís Delgado was appearing all the time on TV defending Santana Lopes.

So, write at will that "Santana Lopes claims that the press criticised him". You are presenting his POV, and that's fine. But don't write "the press criticised him", since I don't think that's a fact- columnists aren't the press-, and my opinion is as valid as his, and much more valid than yours. --Explendido Rocha 16:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try once more:

1. I didn't claim to know what the Portuguese press said (beyond the English-language versions I've seen on the Web); I didn't even erefer to what they said. I wrote: “should saying that someone was criticised by the press imply that they're a 'poor victim'? That wasn't the intention, nor, I think, would any native speaker read it like that.” In other words, I was pointing out that you'd misunderstood what the English implied.
2. Unless your emotional and violent language is completely unrelated to your emotional state (something like Tourette's syndrome?), I can tell how you're feeling by reading what you write.
   If you want to engage in personal attacks, I advise you to get a job as Santana Lopes advisor. --Explendido Rocha 18:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   And if you continue to insist on evading the point in order to make petty debating points, I suggest you join Santana Lopes in politics. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your medical opinion about me is as worthless as your opinions of Portuguese politics. --Explendido Rocha 09:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. The term 'the press' in English includes what columnists say; when the press attacks someone, it isn't the paper or the ink, it's the people writing in the newspapers. We don't distinguish between different types of journalist when we use the term 'the press' (although it is possible to specify that, for example, it's editorials which are involved). Nor does the claim that someone was criticised by the press imply that every writer in every newspaper criticised them.

It's good that people contribute to the English Wikipedia whose first language isn't English, but only if they can manage not be so arrogant as to insist that their understanding of English is better than that of native speakers. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Mr Etitis, if , as you say, the term "the press" in English includes what columnists say shouldn't it also include them when they're praising mr Santana? According to you, apparently, no it shouldn't. If a man like Luis Delgado, the portuguese equivalent of Ann Coulter (minus the boobs) in praising the current administration and also one of the most powerful people in the administrtion boards of portuguese media conglomerates (if one can call them that) and news agencies, with two daily columns (a unique situation in Portugal) in the national media and participant of several weekly television and radio talk-shows, isn't part of the press, then I must conclude you have a double standard for what constitutes "the press". If it turns out mr Delgado is actually a part of the press, as you seem to cuncurr, then it's incorrect to say Santana was criticized by "the press". Would you adress my reasoning if you'd be so kind? - Serodio

(PS: You presented us with this little gem: "It's good that people contribute to the English Wikipedia whose first language isn't English, but only if they can manage not be so arrogant as to insist that their understanding of English is better than that of native speakers". I have seen none claiming to understand English better than you. Although you should be so tolerant as to admit that your not knowing first hand the idiossincrasies of the portuguese media and mr Santana's ever-recurring whining about how the press was against him could possibly affect your judgement on what may or may not constitute an accurate report of what happened while he was in charge, you chose instead to try to diminish another contributer to the page. While I'm sure you are actually a good person, when you make these ad hominem attacks you sound (note:"sound") like an arrogant prick. But I'm sure that's probably just because of my poor grasp of the English language)

When you've calmed down, grown up, put your prejudices to one side, and put your arguments in a reasonably polite and pleasant way, I'll respond. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye

I'm leaving the page to the childish bickering between politically motivated people. As it seems to be the only page that most of you are interested in, I suppose that it doesn't much matter if you grow old here reverting each other's changes. I tried to hold out against you, but I've got better things to do. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed the box at the top?

If not, please read it now - it's the policy on biographies of living persons. I will quote: "controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Yes, I just did that: I commented all the non-sourced negative material (I did not delete it, in case someone wants to go at it and pu in sources). I am surprised that there was such a huge discussion on this page about all the controversial issues surrounding this person and yet there is only one-ONE! source for the whole article. Again, I ask you to please read WP:LIVING, especially if you intend to revert my edits. Thank you. --maf 19:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)